BS Summary: This article contains 6 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, Biased Writer Voice, and Anchoring Bias, with Availability Heuristic as the most egregious example at 21.9% saturation with 25 hits. Analysis detected 105 faulty-reasoning hits from 114 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 17.5% and a BS Rank of 4% (21,102 of 21,886 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 96.40% of the article peer group.

Minnesota is ranked No. 5 in America's Top States for Business for 2026. 
CNBC’s annual study once again puts all 50 states to the test, measuring them on 138 metrics, the most ever, across ten categories of competitiveness. 
Economic Profile 
Governor: Tim Walz, Democrat 
Population: 5,830,405 
GDP growth (Q1 2026): 0.30% 
Unemployment rate (May 2026): 4.40% 
Top corporate tax rate: 9.80% 
Top individual income tax rate: 9.85% 
Gasoline tax: 51.10 cents/gallon 
Bond rating (Moody's/S&P): Aaa, Stable/AAA, Stable 
Economic profile sources: U.S. 
Census Bureau, U.S. 
Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. 
Bureau of Labor Statistics, Federation of Tax Administrators, American Petroleum Institute (including 18.40 cent/gallon federal tax), Moody's Investor Service, S&P Global Market Intelligence 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%CNBC.com staff: 0.0%CNBC: 4.6%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 11.4%CNBC.com staff: 4.4%CNBC: 1.9%Anchoring Bias11.4%This article: 21.9%CNBC.com staff: 3.0%CNBC: 3.1%Availability Heuristic21.9%This article: 0.0%CNBC.com staff: 1.1%CNBC: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%CNBC.com staff: 0.0%CNBC: 0.4%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%CNBC.com staff: 4.3%CNBC: 2.8%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%CNBC.com staff: 0.3%CNBC: 6.5%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%CNBC.com staff: 0.0%CNBC: 0.8%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%CNBC.com staff: 0.0%CNBC: 0.8%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%CNBC.com staff: 0.0%CNBC: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%CNBC.com staff: 0.0%CNBC: 7.7%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%CNBC.com staff: 0.0%CNBC: 2.1%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%CNBC.com staff: 2.7%CNBC: 6.4%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%CNBC.com staff: 0.0%CNBC: 1.3%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%CNBC.com staff: 0.3%CNBC: 0.7%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%CNBC.com staff: 0.0%CNBC: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%CNBC.com staff: 0.0%CNBC: 0.7%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%CNBC.com staff: 0.0%CNBC: 0.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 11.4%CNBC.com staff: 3.6%CNBC: 2.9%Halo Effect11.4%This article: 0.0%CNBC.com staff: 0.9%CNBC: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%CNBC.com staff: 0.0%CNBC: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%CNBC.com staff: 1.1%CNBC: 2.2%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%CNBC.com staff: 1.1%CNBC: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%CNBC.com staff: 0.0%CNBC: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%CNBC.com staff: 0.0%CNBC: 0.2%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%CNBC.com staff: 0.0%CNBC: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 21.9%CNBC.com staff: 6.9%CNBC: 5.0%Appeal to Authority21.9%This article: 0.0%CNBC.com staff: 0.0%CNBC: 1.0%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%CNBC.com staff: 0.0%CNBC: 0.6%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%CNBC.com staff: 0.0%CNBC: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%CNBC.com staff: 0.0%CNBC: 4.2%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%CNBC.com staff: 0.0%CNBC: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%CNBC.com staff: 0.0%CNBC: 0.6%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%CNBC.com staff: 0.9%CNBC: 2.5%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%CNBC.com staff: 0.0%CNBC: 0.7%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%CNBC.com staff: 0.0%CNBC: 3.3%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%CNBC.com staff: 0.0%CNBC: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%CNBC.com staff: 0.0%CNBC: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%CNBC.com staff: 0.0%CNBC: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%CNBC.com staff: 1.1%CNBC: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%CNBC.com staff: 0.9%CNBC: 1.3%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%CNBC.com staff: 0.0%CNBC: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%CNBC.com staff: 0.9%CNBC: 1.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%CNBC.com staff: 0.0%CNBC: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%CNBC.com staff: 0.0%CNBC: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%CNBC.com staff: 0.0%CNBC: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%CNBC.com staff: 0.0%CNBC: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%CNBC.com staff: 0.0%CNBC: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 3.5%CNBC.com staff: 0.3%CNBC: 2.5%Unattributed Quote3.5%This article: 0.0%CNBC.com staff: 0.0%CNBC: 1.1%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 21.9%CNBC.com staff: 3.0%CNBC: 3.7%Biased Writer Voice21.9%This article: 0.0%CNBC.com staff: 0.0%CNBC: 0.9%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%CNBC.com staff: 0.0%CNBC: 0.7%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%CNBC.com staff: 0.3%CNBC: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%CNBC.com staff: 5.7%CNBC: 5.1%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

114 words analyzed.

Speakers

5speakers53%attributed speech54writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageCNBC • 25 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageTim Walz • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverageCensus Bureau • 3 words • 0.0% coverageBureau of Economic Analysis • 5 words • 0.0% coverageBureau of Labor Statistics • 23 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

CNBC

100%flagged-word coverage
25 attributed words42% of attributed speech31% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%CNBC: 100.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote-7.4 ptsWriter: 7.4%CNBC: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.